Can there be created a new bitcoin network, say BC2, and BC3 etc. based on the same technology/algoritm as bitcoin? Or is it unique in its nature? For example, i believe one can have many cell-phone network in parallell that does not need to communicate with each other. I believe one also could have many internets etc. But is there something with bitcoin that makes this impossible?

So the solution is simply to promote at least one other cryptocurrency in the market (ideally there might be 2 for better distribution), and do it before Bitcoin gets a stronger foothold. The timing of TBF announcement is fantastic, because it leaves room in Bitcoin's life for competition to check it.

Your new blockchain would have to distinguish itself somehow. By reward structure, inflation rate, hashing algo... Etc. Or else simply get eaten by the great red spot on Jupiter that is Bitcoin.

Yes, and LTC and NVC do distinguish themselves. LTC substantially reduces block confirmation time among other things, and NVC adds proof-of-stake to proof-of-work for protection from 51% attacks. But my favorite difference for these two chains (which are gaining traction) are simply that they are not Bitcoin. That allows for two important safety measures: an outlet to express dissatisfaction with circumstances surrounding Bitcoin; and a technical and economic backup if a problem arises with Bitcoin like the unforseen chain fork we recently experienced.

The problem with an alt blockchain that is too similar to Bitcoin is that bang for the buck in risk diversity just isn't there. It's like trying to protect cheetahs by making identical copies. When a lack of genetic diversity is what is already a primary threat to them in the first place.

I don't see the correlation, but for the record what appears to make cheetahs endangered is as follows:

Quote

The cheetah is endangered today largely because human beings have taken over much of the cat's habitat and killed off the small antelope the cheetah hunts for food.

But there is another problem with having an alt that is too similar, which is that it is unlikely to thrive well enough to serve as a backup for that place in the ecosystem. LTC may be fine and dandy but because of the choice of inflation rate traction will be very long coming.

Traction is already here. Much of the coin's early life was spent around $.04, and even that was considered traction over the other failed alt-coins which were/are fractions of a penny, which is why I focused on it and not anything else at the time. Today LTC's exchange rate is about $0.50. People around Bitcoin in the early days may remember similar pricing patterns.

I actually think Litecoin's inflation rate makes a stronger case for it gaining market traction because there are already as many litecoins as bitcoins in circulation, more so actually due to a faster inflation rate (about 16M LTC currently).

We probably need a broad spectrum of inflation rates for diversity's sake, but I speculate that a competing alt would need an inflation rate approximately half that of Bitcoin to gain much traction in the early stages of its development.

I think we will eventually end up with such a spectrum to give the decentralized crypto currencies a tiered system as there is in the debt markets. With risk levels tailored to every need in the various arbitrage markets.

I believe inflation rate plays little role. What's more important is that there is a reasonable cap on total amount of coins.

Absent some fundamental flaw, it's going to be very hard for any alt cryptocurrency to catch up with Bitcoin given the head start it has.

I disagree.

So did BetaMax. Reality didn't care what their opinion was either.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

Absent some fundamental flaw, it's going to be very hard for any alt cryptocurrency to catch up with Bitcoin given the head start it has.

The space colonies will probably be sufficiently isolated by lag to develop a parallel network which is on par.

Well, that's probably true. The lunies could still use Bitcoin without trouble, but Mars pretty much would have to start their own blockchain.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

Absent some fundamental flaw, it's going to be very hard for any alt cryptocurrency to catch up with Bitcoin given the head start it has.

I disagree.

So did BetaMax. Reality didn't care what their opinion was either.

WTF man? BetaMax was the bomb!

Sure, but it wasn't first to market, VHS was. VHS won. Betamax wasn't better enough for the early adopters to switch, due to the network effect. Bitcoin has the first to market advantage, and the potential ability to annex any real improvements that an alt-chain can produce anyway. If the 2 minute interval that LTC uses really offers a market advantage, Bitcoin can steal that advantage. There are only a few things about the way the network actually works that can't be messed with, including the 21 M BTC limit.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

Absent some fundamental flaw, it's going to be very hard for any alt cryptocurrency to catch up with Bitcoin given the head start it has.

I disagree.

So did BetaMax. Reality didn't care what their opinion was either.

WTF man? BetaMax was the bomb!

Sure, but it wasn't first to market, VHS was. VHS won. Betamax wasn't better enough for the early adopters to switch, due to the network effect. Bitcoin has the first to market advantage, and the potential ability to annex any real improvements that an alt-chain can produce anyway. If the 2 minute interval that LTC uses really offers a market advantage, Bitcoin can steal that advantage. There are only a few things about the way the network actually works that can't be messed with, including the 21 M BTC limit.

Hmm, actually Betamax was first to market:

Quote

developed by Sony, released in Japan on May 10, 1975 ... rival videotape format VHS (introduced in Japan by JVC in October 1976 ...

But I agree with your sentiment. First to market will certainly have the advantage unless, like you say, competition has significant improvement allowing it to catch up.

This crypto-currency movement we're all a part of is interesting, though, because it deals with monetary aspects as well as technical considerations. I do believe at a certain point a crypto-currency is probably beyond challenge due to market share, but I don't believe Bitcoin is there yet.

What I see happening is Bitcoin leading the way to global acceptance of crypto-currency. Similar to gold I believe you'll be able to exchange bitcoins for goods and services around the globe. However, we're a very long way from that, so long that I believe alternate market choices to Bitcoin will also spread in adoption to eventually reach the whole globe. Presently it looks like there will be three global blockchains: Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Novacoin. Absent any marked improvement over the offerings of those 3 coins nothing else will gain that level of acceptance. So we will see a "lock in" effect to market share, but this will include more than Bitcoin.

Your new blockchain would have to distinguish itself somehow. By reward structure, inflation rate, hashing algo... Etc. Or else simply get eaten by the great red spot on Jupiter that is Bitcoin.

My BTC2 will distinguish itself in many good ways:

1. It will be started by much more miners in the beginning - hence more even distribution.2. It will kick ass the early shadowy murky early adopters of todays BTC 3. I will get into BTC2 much earlier than I did in BTC, hence recover the losses when my BTC has no longer any value

I think there can only be two real cryptocurrencies, just like Coke and Pepsi. Bitcoin is no 1, Litecoin is no 2. I guess Bitcoin will have 90% of the market share of total cryptocurrencies in dollarvalue, Litecoin 9%, and Shitcoin 1...N will have 1% at most.

The problem with shitcoin 1...n is that the less network hashpower they got, the less secure and attractive they will be.

Bitcoin has now gained such a critical mass of hashpower and users that It is unlikely that any other open source currency can threaten it. Litecoin might have a chance to attract some users and survive as little brother.

Presently it looks like there will be three global blockchains: Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Novacoin. Absent any marked improvement over the offerings of those 3 coins nothing else will gain that level of acceptance. So we will see a "lock in" effect to market share, but this will include more than Bitcoin.

I've never even heard of Novacoin, and a search for that term yielded only this very post. What is it?

EDIT: Nevermind, I found it. A PoW and PoS hybrid that uses Scrypt in the PoW part, presumedly to made GPU/ASIC mining impossible. I've seen no method of PoS that I personally couldn't really monkey with, so I'm biased against any such thing from the start. I don't think it has legs.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."